Posted by Adam Kutarnia.

People have been betting on sports for centuries, however, the multi-billion dollar industry is illegal in almost all parts of the United States except for four states – Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana. Last summer, 29 men were arrested in New Jersey for running a sports betting ring that grossed approximately to $3 million during a 12-month period. New Jersey is one of the many states where sports gambling is illegal, but many are fighting to change the law.

While most of the world allows sports gambling, the United States has been strict about it since passing the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, which prohibits sports gambling nationwide, excluding a few states. New Jersey has been pushing hard to legalize sports gambling in the last couple years, but has been unsuccessful due to four major professional sports leagues – NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL and NCAA blocking it.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christe has been a strong supporter of legalizing sports gambling in New Jersey, and even signed a law passed by the state legislatures to allow sports gambling in New Jersey’s casinos and racetracks, before the major professional leagues and NCAA blocked it. The plaintiffs argue that sports betting would harm the integrity of sports and violate federal law. As of right now, New Jersey is losing millions of dollars in potential revenue to offshore and organized crime.

New Jersey will get another shot at their case after a federal court hearing before a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals took place last month; a ruling in the case will be made on June 26.

Like the case above with the 29 men being arrested for running a sports betting ring, people want to bet on games and will do so whether it’s legal or not.

Adam is a business administration major with a concentration in finance at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Briana Brandao.

This article, written by MaryAnn Spoto, brings to question whether or not Rutgers University violated the New Jersey open public meetings law, during one of their meetings held back in September of 2008. Francis McGovern Jr, a lawyer as well as audience member of this meeting, objected to the way these meetings were promoted and handled. McGovern noted that audience members waited over four hours while board members discussed issues behind closed doors. Once the board of governors finally reassembled, many audience members had grown tired of waiting and already left.

McGovern also noted that the Rutgers board of governors failed to mention topics discussed behind closed doors such as talk of Rutgers new football stadium. She stated, “This case is about governmental transparency,” and believes these long and tedious closed sessions dissuade public attendance. During her case, she asked that the court make it mandatory for Rutgers to hold public meetings first. She believed that by not bringing to light all issues discussed among Board of Governors, that Rutgers violated the law.

Although many may argue that McGovern had reason behind her case, the Supreme Court still ruled that Rutgers University was in compliance with the law. The court did not believe that Rutgers conducted their meetings in a way that discouraged public attendance. The court also stated that Rutgers Board of Governors did not violate the open public meetings law.

However, the court did agree that lawmakers should in fact look into tightening the law. Discussion of tightening this law would allow citizens the opportunity to challenge public organizations trying to get around the law. All in all, Rutgers University was pleased with the court’s decision.

Briana is a business administration major with a concentration in management and fashion studies at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Tommy Donofrio.

Every motor vehicle must display a license plate signifying that it has been properly registered with the appropriate state or local government. Symbols, colors, or slogans representing the cultural heritage of each state are typically included in the license plate design of each state or jurisdiction. Upon registration, a unique alphanumeric identifying number is assigned to the user. Sometimes, individuals, businesses or organizations remit additional fees to be able to display custom or personalized license plates. These plates, which may help raise awareness and funds for specific causes or groups, must adhere to particular guidelines. That is, perhaps, until now. Recently, the Supreme Court was called on to decide if the “decision to exclude the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) from the specialty license plate program violated the organization’s free speech rights under the First Amendment.”

Not surprisingly, this is the first time the Supreme Court is called on to clarify the law surrounding specialty license plates. The Supreme Court will determine if a message on a specialty plate is considered to be a form of “private” or “government” speech. If it is private, then the First Amendment protects the message. For the Sons of Confederate Veterans, this means that they have the right to display the confederate battle flag to “honor the reputation of soldiers who fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War” even though the state of Texas finds this message racist and offensive. Conversely, if the Supreme Courts determines that specialty plates are a form of government speech, as Texas officials claim, then the state “is allowed to select the message that it is willing to publicly support.” The Sons of Confederate Veterans will not be able to freely express their message.

Although it may seem a trivial issue, it has far reaching ramifications. The Supreme Court’s decision is important because it will influence every state and local jurisdiction going forward. According to Richard W. Garnett of Notre Dame Law School, the ruling will effect “all of the many, many ways that government property and funds facilitate expression and communication.” If the court sides with the state, both individuals and businesses may be hindered from raising awareness and revenue through the use of personalized plates in the future. A decision is expected by early summer.

Tommy is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Abier Mustafa.

Stryker Corp., a device maker company, recalled its Rejuvenate and ABG II hip implant devices in July 2012 after warning surgeons they could harm tissue around the hip and cause other health problems to its patients. Patients have complained of severe pain, unusual swelling and excessive metal debris in their blood, blaming all these symptoms on the Stryker devices. There are at least 1,800 cases Stryker consolidated before U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank in St. Paul, Minnesota. After facing more than 4,000 suits consolidated in the New Jersey state court and federal court in Minnesota alone, Stryker will pay a base amount of $300,000 per patient’s case. This settlement to patients who had the devices surgically removed prior to November 3^rd.

Stryker Corp. has reported more than $9 billion in revenue in 2013 on the advertisement of their hip implants lasting for years. After the devices failed patients within a short amount of time, the company has now agreed to pay more than $1 billion to resolve these lawsuits. However, “the company said that it set aside more than $1.4 billion to cover costs of handling cases over the recalled hips so the settlement fell into the “‘low end of the range of probable loss.’” “This settlement program provides patients compensation in a fair, timely and efficient manner,” Bill Huffnagle, a spokesman for Kalamazoo, Michigan-based Stryker, said in an e-mailed statement. A source also reveals that a majority of the payments will be made by the end of 2015.

Abier is a finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Briana Brandao.

This article, written by MaryAnn Spoto, brings to question whether or not Rutgers University violated the New Jersey open public meetings law, during one of their meetings held back in September of 2008. Francis McGovern Jr, a lawyer as well as audience member of this meeting, objected to the way these meetings were promoted and handled. McGovern noted that audience members waited over four hours while board members discussed issues behind closed doors. Once the board of governors finally reassembled, many audience members had grown tired of waiting and already left.

McGovern also noted that the Rutgers board of governors failed to mention topics discussed behind closed doors such as talk of Rutgers new football stadium. She stated, “This case is about governmental transparency,” and believes these long and tedious closed sessions dissuade public attendance. During her case, she asked that the court make it mandatory for Rutgers to hold public meetings first. She believed that by not bringing to light all issues discussed among Board of Governors, that Rutgers violated the law.

Although many may argue that McGovern had reason behind her case, the Supreme Court still ruled that Rutgers University was in compliance with the law. The court did not believe that Rutgers conducted their meetings in a way that discouraged public attendance. The court also stated that Rutgers Board of Governors did not violate the open public meetings law.

However, the court did agree that lawmakers should in fact look into tightening the law. Discussion of tightening this law would allow citizens the opportunity to challenge public organizations trying to get around the law. All in all, Rutgers University was pleased with the court’s decision.

Briana is a business administration major with a concentration in management and fashion studies at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Briana Brandao.

This article, written by MaryAnn Spoto, brings to question whether or not Rutgers University violated the New Jersey open public meetings law, during one of their meetings held back in September of 2008. Francis McGovern Jr, a lawyer as well as audience member of this meeting, objected to the way these meetings were promoted and handled. McGovern noted that audience members waited over four hours while board members discussed issues behind closed doors. Once the board of governors finally reassembled, many audience members had grown tired of waiting and already left.

McGovern also noted that the Rutgers board of governors failed to mention topics discussed behind closed doors such as talk of Rutgers new football stadium. She stated, “This case is about governmental transparency,” and believes these long and tedious closed sessions dissuade public attendance. During her case, she asked that the court make it mandatory for Rutgers to hold public meetings first. She believed that by not bringing to light all issues discussed among Board of Governors, that Rutgers violated the law.

Although many may argue that McGovern had reason behind her case, the Supreme Court still ruled that Rutgers University was in compliance with the law. The court did not believe that Rutgers conducted their meetings in a way that discouraged public attendance. The court also stated that Rutgers Board of Governors did not violate the open public meetings law.

However, the court did agree that lawmakers should in fact look into tightening the law. Discussion of tightening this law would allow citizens the opportunity to challenge public organizations trying to get around the law. All in all, Rutgers University was pleased with the court’s decision.

Briana is a business administration major with a concentration in management and fashion studies at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Rizzlyn Melo.

The car-manufacturing company, Tesla, has been battling with New Jersey government officials for the right to sell their premium electric cars in the state. Tesla differs from other car-manufacturers because they sell their vehicles directly from small, independently-owned sites instead of large dealerships. Many of Tesla’s facilities are actually located in various malls in New Jersey. The issue with this practice is that under New Jersey law, cars can only be sold through registered dealerships. In the article, this legislation “was put into place at a time when small local dealers were perceived as vulnerable to the moves of major national manufacturers.” Because of Tesla, this law has been targeted and challenged by various carmakers and consumer-rights groups. Fortunately, it can be said that their efforts have not gone in vain. In March, Governor Chris Christie signed new legislation that allows Tesla to operate at four sites in New Jersey. Shortly after this was signed, New Jersey lawmakers approved an amendment granting zero emission car manufacturers the right to operate dealerships in the state.

Tesla’s success story in New Jersey shows that the market is modernizing. Legislation that was once effective in the past can actually be disadvantageous in the present day. While the law requiring sales through registered dealerships was once helpful to small businesses, it prevented a company from potentially helping the environment. Tesla only produces zero-emission, luxury cars. They are a company seeking to reduce society’s carbon footprint by introducing a sleek, fashionable car to the market that does not require gas. The government’s initial refusal to allow this company to conduct its business in New Jersey made legislators look like they would sacrifice an environmental advancement for the sake of large dealerships. Tesla’s win in New Jersey represents more than the right to sell cars; it is a win for the evolving market that is in need of environmentally friendly products.

Rizzlyn is a business administration major with a concentration in marketing at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by ZaAsia Thompson-Hunter.

The Federal Communications Commission(FCC) is trying to enforce the disclosure of media contracts from various media companies. These companies include widely recognized corporations such as Disney, CBS, Comcast, Time Warner, and many more. These highly established media corporations oppose the order because they affirm this action will put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Earlier this month these media companies put in a request to the U.S court of appeals to stop the disclosure of their programing contracts. In response, the FCC stated that disclosure “’will aid the commission in the expeditious resolution of these proceedings.’”

Announced on November 14,2014, the media companies won the order to block the request made by the FCC. In connection, “a federal appeals court in Washington today said regulators reviewing the merger can’t immediately let third parties see the contracts.”

ZaAsia is a business administration major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Joseph Locorriere. 

The fundamentals of business, something that America has practiced for decades and which was proven to be the correct way of managing a business, include running an ethical business, such as taking proper care and recognition of employees and customers as well as the surrounding environment. However, as America continues to stray farther from these values, businesses continue to find themselves in situations which is tantamount to malpractice. It is no longer as common to see businesses acting ethically as it was like years in the past, mainly due to short run profit maximization. Morgan Stanley, one of the top banks in the country has once again acted unethically towards customers. Like many instances, this business was focused on volume of sales and not ethics, also considered short-run profit maximization, due to the sole fact of making as much money as possible without concern of the public good.

Similar to the 2008 occurrence of selling faulty loans such as NINA loans (No Income, No Asset) or sub-prime mortgages that intentionally fooled the buyer into thinking they would afford their mortgage, Morgan Stanley sold Security Based Loans (SBLs) to customers, allegedly breaching their fiduciary duty. Brokers were incentivized by a $5,000 bonus for meeting loan quotas, which was intended for boosting the companies’ volume of sales. By incentivizing the employees with a bonus they disregarded customers overall satisfaction; instead they focused primarily on volume. Although Morgan Stanley boosted their profits by $24 million in new loan balances, they are being taken to a court of law for business malpractice. Morgan Stanley states that, “The securities-based loan accounts were opened only after discussing the product with each client and obtaining their affirmative consent” (Zacks.com). Although this may stand true, it still violated Morgan Stanley’s fiduciary duty to customers of informing them of their investment.

It is unfortunate to see businesses continue to perform unethically towards customers, as well as employees. Longevity, reputation and long-run profit maximization are no longer commonly displayed. Morgan Stanley in this case should have stayed with giving a bonus, but should have not forgotten about the fundamental values they hold as a broker, which is to inform clients on investments, whether it be positive or negative news. Sadly enough, this is another example of America’s current business strategy that fails to be aware of the public good.

Joseph is a finance student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Kimberly McNamara.

A former controller of the Hereditary Disease Foundation, a nonprofit group out of New York that encourages and contributes to studies and other research dealing with congenital diseases, has been indicted, this year, for embezzlement of over $1.8 million. The organizations former controller, Karen Alameddine, who was responsible for managing finances from 2005 through January 2014, began “‘to make what in reality were transfers to her personal bank account appear as if they were wire or bank transfers to grant recipients,” according to Manhattan Federal Prosecutors.

Alameddine, who also went by the name Karen Dean, made a fake business called “Abacus Accounting,” “Chez Cheval Ranch,” “Dean & Co,” and “Karen Dean Exports,” to try and cover her tracks. She was not so successful. On November 17 of this year, she was arrested in Boston, and the following day, made an appearance in federal court and is now awaiting a transfer to Manhattan, says The NY Times.

Suspicions were raised when a complaint was made after Alameddine left the nonprofit this past January, stating that an account holder never received their check from the group.

In a statement given by the organization, “this loss was confirmed through internal investigation and a forensic audit conducted by outside legal counsel retained immediately by the foundation. . . . Although the theft was substantial, only a small amount of grant monies committed before 2104 was compromised.”

Alameddine was charged with five counts of tax evasion and one count of wire fraud.

Kim is a business administration major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.